It is well know that golf shafts are asymmetric with respect to the shape, material composition and force required to bend the shaft in different directions to a given flex point. This asymmetry can have very negative bending characteristics on a golf shaft when assembled into a golf club, typically occurs in the manufacture of the shaft and has been driven by the golf industries requirements for cheap and mass produced golf clubs. When golf clubs are manufactured, the asymmetry is often ignored, resulting in a set of golf clubs, by visual inspection, are matched, yet the flex of sister clubs within the set, may vary due to the different rotation of the flex asymmetry or neutral flex point, relative to the neutral position of the golf head causing the increased likelihood of a slice or hook due to a non-square clubface at impact. Or, its overall propensity to bend in relation to sister clubs, quantitative flex characteristics, which may share an identical rotation of flex asymmetry relative to the neutral position of the golf head causing a need to vary swing speed by the golfer to achieve optimum flex potential at ball impact. In the present invention, references will be made to the “Neutral Flex Point” of a golf shaft, this can be easily identified with a “point of least resistance” to bend and should never be confused with the “seam”, “spine” or “material merge line” of a golf shaft. References will also be made to “Flex Weight” which denotes the quantitative measurement of a shafts propensity to bend.
In graphite shafts, unlike steel shafts, logos are generally placed on the shaft itself for marketing and advertising. Since the logo has no correlation to the placement of the “neutral flex point” mark of a shaft, once a club has been neutralized, the possibility exists that the shaft logos may fall in various positions around the golf club hosel as dictated by the Neutral flex point mark alignment to the Neutral Point of the club head. Thereby contributing to an awkward and unprofessional look in terms of a finished golf club
It has long been the desire to mitigate these unpredictable bending characteristics in efforts to achieve a more consistent feel and performance in the golf club. For example, Colbert is U.S. Pat. No. 4,958,834 describes the desire to align the shaft seam with the club face in a consistent manner. Colbert specifically targets and defines a seam as the strongest point of a shaft with its true intent being to identify the physical, and potentially non-visible point where material edges were merged together to form a shaft. When looking at basic engineering principles, the attempt to identify a metal merge line does not equate or translate into an identification of a shafts “point of least resistance” to bend. I.E. When a shaft is deflected in a golf swing, the first point on a shaft, in terms of 360 degree rotation around the shaft tip, where a shaft will bend when it is deflected. Secondly, as identified by in Weiss, U.S. Pat. No. 6,183,375, line 26, “It has become apparent, however, that this technique is only approximate and generally only locates the seam in a quadrant of the four quadrants present.” Furthermore, Colbert is based upon oscillating a shaft in efforts to define its weld line, nor does it teach a method to mark the “neutral flex point” of a shaft, nor does it teach a method to align the shaft to the head other than through a vague and in-precise method that is not acceptable to this patents method which relies on precision. Finally, Colbert does not define quantitative data to match shafts within a set based on similar data characteristics.
Weiss in U.S. Pat. No. 6,183,375 makes further attempts to define and refine a “seam” line designation by including references to non-visible seam lines. This has many deficiencies other than the obvious of targeting the “seam” line or material merge line as opposed to the “Neutral Flex Point”. Foremost, the Weiss invention requires the shaft butt to be clamped or fixed in place when the shafts oscillation is measured using a defined weight. Furthermore, the Weiss invention denotes another scenario where the shaft is left unclamped but bent in the middle for purposes of determining oscillation. A position that no where near resembles a golf swing and does not correspond to the Neutral Flex Point location. As denoted in the referenced patent, manual human intervention is also required to oscillate and rotate the shaft in efforts to determine its optimum point. The invention presented herein differs completely in its practical application, this patent requires the shaft to be rested in a free floating position without the aid of a clamping mechanism and each shaft is deflected at the tip only to a given position. While Weiss seeks to quantify his data characteristics by measuring the distance the shaft was deflected by a fixed weight, this invention seeks to measure the required amount of force to deflect every shaft to a specified and pre-determined distance. Weiss notes that using his invention the relative tension and compression side of a shaft can be determined and they will always be 180 degrees part. However, when using the invention as described herein, this invention is able to identify multiple “neutral bending points” or point where the shaft seeks to bend, however, these point may be anywhere between 15 and 180 degrees away from the “neutral flex point” and may exist at 3 or more points around the shaft, without correlation from shaft to shaft. Finally, Weiss does not identify a mark for precise alignment to a head mark nor does it teach a method to precisely identify the point on a head that the “Neutral Flex Point” mark should be precisely aligned to. Nor does Weiss teach a method of utilizing the characteristic data achieved from each shaft and grouping or matching golf shafts together into sets based on those unique shaft characteristics.
Weiss further builds on his Oscillation method in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,915,695, 6,990,865, 6,993,970 and 6,997,056. But these patents still require the shaft to be Oscillated in various directions around the shaft with the butt end of the shaft clamped into place.
Braly in U.S. Pat. No. 5,040,279, is looking at a process called Frequency which is simply a measure of diminishing oscillation within a shaft and not related in any way to the “neutral flex point” of a shaft or even a shaft “seam”. Obtaining the frequency of a shaft is accomplish by hanging a weight from the tip of a shaft, “twanging” it, and measuring the frequency it emits (Diminishing oscillation). Completely different in form, application and purpose. Braly then marks the point where he took the frequency measurement and denotes it specifically with a mark. Therefore Braly's mark is derived from where he took the frequency measurement due to a vibrating pattern while our mark is determined by the bending characteristics of that shaft when it is deflected, not by a humans attempt to achieve a point of reference for his measure of diminishing oscillation. Again, two completely separate marks and purposes. Additionally, Braly does specify a mark at the tip for alignment to a mark within a golf head. Braly does not teach a method of aligning that mark to a golf head. Most importantly, Braly's mark represents something completely different than the marks submitted by this applicant. Braly's one slight reference to the “seam” was his attempt to establish a basis for this invention. Visible shaft “seams” were once used as the starting point for the frequency matching as Braly defines. However, since visible “seams” have disappeared on the golf shaft, their original starting point for frequency matching disappeared. Therefore, Braly's invention was meant to be a new method in defining a starting point for determining shaft frequency. Thereby acknowledging loosing its direct correlation to what was once known as the visible shaft “seam”.
D'Aguanno in U.S. Pat. No. 6,250,168 attempts to find the “spine” of the shaft by deflecting the shaft in the center into a v-shape. A position that no where near resembles a golf swing and does not correspond to the Neutral Flex Point location since he is trying to find the “strongest point of the golf shaft”. D'Aguanno does not teach a method to mark the tip of the shaft for purposes of alignment nor does he teach a method to precisely align the neutral flex point mark to the neutral point of the head. Furthermore, D'Aguanno does not seek to obtain or quantify any data characteristics for the purposes of matching into sets.
The Karner U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,771,552 and 5,870,815, obviates the use of an alignment mark placed on the shaft merely for aesthetics when attaching a grip or graphic upon a shaft. The alignment mark may take the form of a line, mark or other graphic and merely acts as a reference to the club maker after the club is partially assembled and has absolutely no correlation to the “Neutral Flex Point” mark. This patent attempts to align a perceived grip or graphic line to a head using a mark in a somewhat consistent manner but the club face may be concave, convex or offset which would provide faulty alignment of the club when utilizing a one size fits all method to accommodate 6 degree drivers to 60 degree flat belly sand wedges. However, as further noted by Karner, the lone reference to a seam line is referring to the old shaft manufacturing method that resulted in visible seam lines the length of the shaft, put further noted that this concern disappeared with the invention of non-visible seam shafts. As also noted in Colbert, Weiss and Braly above.
Green U.S. Pat. No. 4,317,568 distinctly teaches a shaft to head alignment, but only to be used on a putter. Once this union is made between the club and the shaft, one would rely on Green to apply a plumb line to the putter for the purposes of reading the green contours and would be unrelated to the rotational orientation between the shaft and club head. Furthermore, Green's marks would have to be applied after the club is assembled to define a proper plumb line while the Neutralization marks contained in this patent would be required prior to the beginning of the assembly stage. At this point, it would be pointless to mark the “neutral flex point” of a shaft or the “neutral point” of the club head. In final scrutiny of Greens patent, a shaft to head alignment mark would not be truly aligned when held in a vertical position as compared to the shaft to head alignment mark in this patent due to the compensation for the plumb characteristics in the putter head that must be factored due to gravity, completely irrelevant to a club heads “neutral point”. Greens application can also be applied in any 360 degree rotation of the club shaft without affecting its intended use while this patent requires a precise point on the shaft and club that should not be altered.
Ciccarello et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,976,028, describes a method for determining a shaft seam using oscillation. This patent fails to teach a method to match Golf Shafts and Golf Clubs. There is no indication in Ciccarello et al. how a skilled artisan could align a shaft properly with the golf head. To date, any perceived alignment has been done by visual inspection.
Folger, Adams and Reach are dismissed due to the same reasons as mentioned above for Green. These inventions rely on the post golf-club-production application of alignment marks for the purpose of swing training aids. These marks do not correlate to any shaft bending characteristics nor do they relate to the “neutral flex point” or “neutral point” of a club head.
Bamber U.S. Pat. No. 5,913,733 addresses the creation of an oval shaped shaft strictly for the purposes of aerodynamics. This requires the fattest section of the shaft to be placed within the swing plane. Using basic engineering principles in the application of our method against this patent, we would disagree in the orientation of the shaft away from the stiffest section to aligning the weakest (skinniest) section to within the swing plane. Nor does Bamber teach a method of identifying or utilizing flex characteristic data achieved from each shaft and grouping or matching golf shafts together into sets based on those unique shaft characteristics.
Originating with Colbert, Weiss, Braly and Ciccerello, these prior art rely on the shaft to be clamped into position and then some form of manual manipulation is required to identify the “Seam” of the golf shaft using oscillation or frequency. In this applicant's invention, the shaft must be allowed to freely float within an identification device, so that when the shaft is deflected an exact distance, the shaft will automatically rotate by itself to the “neutral flex point” location without the need of human intervention. This applicant's invention is not capable of finding the “seam” of a golf shaft as deflection does not find that material merge line. Likewise, frequency and oscillation are incapable of finding the “neutral flex point” of a golf shaft. Furthermore, these prior art do not teach or mention a method to mark the “neutral flex point” nor do they teach a method or mention of precisely identifying the heads “neutral point” and aligning these two exact marks together to form a “Neutralized” club. Lastly, these prior art do not teach a method of identifying and quantifying these asymmetrical bending characteristic nor do then teach a method of matching these shafts together into sets of matched shafts or clubs based on the asymmetrical bending characteristics.
It has long been felt in the industry that the effect of proper use of the shaft asymmetry could enhance the performance of a golf club. This has been the opinion of club builders since they were still using hickory sticks for shafts. While this has been the opinion, it has not yet been fully tested since the methods for accurately orientating the shaft asymmetry and measuring and matching the “neutral flex points” propensity to bend have been lacking. For example, alignment of the shaft asymmetry with a device such as Karner et al. would provide some information yet the ability to accurately deviate from the square position to test for regions of improved properties is lacking. There is no technique for aligning a shaft neutral flex point at a non-neutral optimal position, for example +15 degrees from neutral, except for visual estimation which is unacceptable. Furthermore, even if improved properties are realized from the studies which are only now made available with the present invention, there is no manner in which the improvement could be utilized since there is no method for accurately determining the neutral flex point of a shaft (irregardless of seam location) then accurately orienting that mark to the club head with respect to the club face location.
Yet another problem in Karner's art is the inability to determine the relationship between the shaft asymmetry and golf head in a prepared club. After the club head is secured to the shaft, there is no way of determining, without disassembly, if the golf shaft is aligned in any specific orientation without Neutral flex point orientation marks.
While Karner and Braly do mention the use of a mark, Karner's marks are strictly related to graphics and grip orientation which is not related whatsoever to the “Neutral Flex Point” of a golf shaft. Braly also mentions the use of marks, but Braly's prior art strictly deals with a method called Frequency Matching that was introduced by True Temper in the 1970's, Braly's use of the mark only designates where the frequency measurement was taken from and does not relate or transcend in any form or fashion to a “Neutral Flex Point” mark.
Moreover, while previous patents have attempted to identify and define these unusual bending characteristics in shafts, these patents have all attempted to solve this problem by focusing on a shafts oscillation pattern in a machine with one or more ends of a shaft clamped or affixed as stationary. The terms Frequency and Oscillation are basically defined as “a measurement of diminishing vibration patterns” and used strictly by these patents to define the “seam” line (Material merge line) of a shaft. While frequency and oscillation may be beneficial in determining the “seam” or material merge line in a shaft, they do not correspond to defining the “neutral flex point” of a shaft. Neutral Flex Point seeks to define the point around a shaft tip which bends first when a load is placed upon a shaft in a golf swing. Finally, Weiss does mention a form of deflection that requires the shaft to be bent in the center to identify the “seam” line. A skilled artisan would easily realize that a golf shaft does not bend in the center and would be incapable of finding the “neutral flex point” mark at the tip of the shaft when it is being deflected in the center of the shaft. However, Weiss is subject to numerous deficiencies by failing to teach the quantification or identification of the bending characteristics, matching the shafts by those characteristics, identifying and marking the “neutral flex point” of a shaft, identifying and marking the “neutral point” of a head or the process of neutralizing a golf club by aligning these specific marks together.
Finally, this method is the only one that is capable of performing all of these claims listed without the need, or error induced by human intervention in a manufacturing environment. This method can be accomplished in seconds while other patents may require minutes per shaft/club.